Trump Part 7

[droodzilla]

yes, you have exposed me. i fail to think critically about anything and simply engage in behavioral clichés, as defined by the wisdom pop psychology.


vuk.

The problem is you think critically about everything. As an ex-philosopher I know that nothing can withstand that kind of scrutiny so it ultimately becomes self-defeating. The question then is where do you choose to make a stand (as it were), since choose you must.

For the record I agree with a lot of what you say about the bigger picture (to the extent it comes across in your posts, anyway). Also, I don't have any special animus against Russia: although I believe it is a corrupt state and that Putin is a macho, bullying c*ck (hence his Trump appeal), it's not uniquely bad. As a matter of fact, one of my most vivid childhood memories of politics is wondering what it would be like to live in Russia and to see the world only through the lens of Russian propaganda - and then thinking that I myself could be in the same position in the West, without ever realising it. The other boys were too busy chasing girls to listen to my brainwave.

Anyway, I'm firmly in the Trump must go camp, and don't see the point in quibbling about (e.g.) whether Saudi Arabia is just as bad right now.

 

[matthewr]

The high point of Donald Trump’s presidency to date — the moment when those who desperately wanted to close their eyes and imagine a normal president standing before the country got something resembling their wish — came during his late-February speech to a joint session of Congress. Trump managed to read his address without narcissistic digressions, and the message he delivered (“Nationalism with an indoor voice,” as one White House official put it) would have been obvious to any casual listener. Over and over, Trump blamed America’s problems on foreigners or the willingness of past leaders to accommodate them: “We’ve watched our middle class shrink as we’ve exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries”; “We’ve defended the borders of other nations while leaving our own borders wide open for anyone to cross”; “America must put its own citizens first”; “Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States”; “My job is to represent the United States of America.”

The display of overt, bellicose nationalism presents a morbid contrast with the unfolding Russia scandal, which exposes the president’s boasts of domestic loyalty as containing all the irony of the title of the television show The Americans. The scandal is spinning off in multiple directions, but at bottom it suggests a betrayal of American sovereignty by Trump that is unprecedented in the history of the republic. For a still-unclear combination of reasons — greed for power, greed for money, vulnerability to blackmail, or motivations unknown — the incoming administration cooperated with the undermining of American democracy by a hostile foreign power.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-republic.html?mid=twitter_dailyintelligencer

 

[vuk]

Sorry, my friend, but truly you have jumped the shark.

who would believe it?

trump is the new president and i am the new fonz.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/14/ukraine-the-truth/

i think we can all agree it would certainly be easier for those in the regime change debate and business if we went back to more direct, old-school techniques.




vuk.

 

[vuk]

The problem is you think critically about everything.

it's certainly proving to be a massive problem in terms of enjoying popular TV shows (as you can read about in the westworld thread ).

i also appear to be suffering from the same sort of thing that drove morris berman to mexico.


vuk.

 

[claire.foxx]

So do a PhD. Critical thinking in the real world all the time is unsustainable, it alienates you from people whom have not yet twigged about the utter pointless and futility of everything -- bad-TV is a good way to temporarily rewire the brain after a day nit-picking some arcane article by a dead author written 10-years before you were born to deconstruct a modern point brought up by a year 1 undergraduate you happen to be teaching whose essay argument you are in disagreement with but unsure why, but by god you have to draw a line in the sand and it is with their essay.

This is a serious and genuine suggestion BTW. No snark has been steganographically interleaved anywhere in the text.

Do a PhD. It's the most socially revered and cultivated form of self-harm you will find.

 

[droodzilla]

So do a PhD. Critical thinking in the real world all the time is unsustainable, it alienates you from people whom have not yet twigged about the utter pointless and futility of everything -- bad-TV is a good way to temporarily rewire the brain after a day nit-picking some arcane article by a dead author written 10-years before you were born to deconstruct a modern point brought up by a year 1 undergraduate you happen to be teaching whose essay argument you are in disagreement with but unsure why, but by god you have to draw a line in the sand and it is with their essay.

This is a serious and genuine suggestion BTW. No snark has been steganographically interleaved anywhere in the text.

Do a PhD. It's the most socially revered and cultivated form of self-harm you will find.

And they're very moreish. I just started my second (Philosophy twenty years ago; Physics now). It's hell.

 

[claire.foxx]

And they're very moreish. I just started my second (Philosophy twenty years ago; Physics now). It's hell.

I paused mine, it was a dead-end but led to an interesting and fruitful diversion so am doing an MSc (as a testbed) before going back to the PhD armed with renewed feminasty vigour. (It also means I don't have to teach first years for a bit -- which is a big plus).

Anyway. Back to Trump etc.

 

[Mullardman]

Do a PhD. It's the most socially revered and cultivated form of self-harm you will find.

Given that I largely agree with your 'pointlessness of everything' in a dark philosophical sense and based on my conviction that death is the end, I have decided that thinking too hard as I approach 70 is simply eating up the time I have left for equally pointless, but more enjoyable pastimes in the short term.

With specific reference to PhDs, I'm always reminded of the splendidly aptly named Dr. Peter Bull. At a 1970s meeting of the British Cave Research Association Annual Conference, ( Posh name for a monumental piss up), he demonstrated his mastery of a new branch of Geology>Speliology>Hydrology.. which he just happened to have invented and which he christened 'Cave Sedimentology'

His lecture was subtitled 'Shit in Holes'.

 

[vuk]

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/17/a-demand-for-russian-hacking-proof/

More than 20 U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic veterans are calling on President Obama to release the evidence backing up allegations that Russia aided the Trump campaign – or admit that the proof is lacking.

MEMORANDUM FOR: President Barack Obama

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: A Key Issue That Still Needs to be Resolved

OK, so it's six weeks later and we have to just trust the CIA. well, they've been so honest and reliable in the past, i guess a little longer can;t hurt.



vuk.

p.s. don;t expect me to step in for max again on a saturday.

 

[vuk]

claire.

i thought you knew, but a PhD already did me in back in the late 90s. i have not held a proper job, used an alarm clock, owned a car or eaten at a fast food franchise since then. that's why i will always fall for even the flimsiest anti-establishment trick.


vuk.

 

[matthewr]

OK, so it's six weeks later and we have to just trust the CIA.

Well the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, Department of Homeland security (and about another 4 agencies I can't remember), the New York Times, the Washington Post, + other independent media outlets and a number of private sector security outlets. When weighing that against a memo from "20 U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic veterans" not refuting the claim but merely calling for the release of more evidence it's a wonder anyone knows what to think.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Given that I largely agree with your 'pointlessness of everything' in a dark philosophical sense and based on my conviction that death is the end, I have decided that thinking too hard as I approach 70 is simply eating up the time I have left for equally pointless, but more enjoyable pastimes in the short term.

I am enjoying doing my PhD (having just got the thumbs-up to upgrade from MPhil, whatever that may be). It gets me out of the house, and there's an excellent old-fashioned pub just across the road from the Library.

 

[vuk]

Well the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, Department of Homeland security (and about another 4 agencies I can't remember), the New York Times, the Washington Post, + other independent media outlets and a number of private sector security outlets. When weighing that against a memo from "20 U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic veterans" not refuting the claim but merely calling for the release of more evidence it's a wonder anyone knows what to think.

i didn't mean to suggest i knew the truth or that this was a refutation of any implications. i am simply wondering why the establishment )or the deep stae -- my favourite new meme) is still playing mind games with the public. it's not as if there's no precedent of american intelligence agencies being involved in deception (or incompetence). they don't have to spill all the beens, but something concrete would be nice.

i also find it amusing/ironic that the on the radio news behind me i keep hearing the media stressing how trump has offered no evidence to us about his allegation against obama. hey, it will be great if they continue in this manner and treat all politicians with this degree scrutiny and skepticism, but i won't hold my breath.


vuk.

 

[vuk]

p.s. matthew, i know you have a fondness for the NFL, but, for the life of me, i just don't understand how someone as cultured, polished and intelligent as you can hold such a warm and fuzzy view of the united states.

 

[matthewr]

they don't have to spill all the beens, but something concrete would be nice.

Erm, you know that that's basically what they did right? And that you can read it here: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

[matthewr]

p.s. matthew, i know you have a fondness for the NFL, but, for the life of me, i just don't understand how someone like you can hold such a warm and fuzzy view of the united states.

You continue to boggle my mind this evening. Just because you are subbing for Max you don't need to faithfully recreate the hard of thinking aspect as well.

 

[vuk]

Erm, you know that that's basically what they did right? And that you can read it here: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

matthew.

the document tells us that...

1- russian intelligence collected election-related information
2- RT, funded by the russian government, is useful for propagating ideas to the american and international public

i have no objection to those conclusions, but is that really the same as what the average person thinks of as "tampering" with elections? is it so different from what the two main parties do?

regarding #1, i am sure the russians and chinese and others gather way more than just election-related information: that they hack anything they can. i imagine the americans do the same. are you suggesting they don't? what would you propose to stop it? should it be stopped? (my idea is to phase out with state secrecy)

with #2, i have been watching RT regularly of late, mainly chris hedges' show "on contact". i have followed his writings and lectures for over a decade now and i don't see any change in him since he joined RT. do you suspect he is somehow compromised? he is very critical of both the american government and the russian one. always has been. the same goes for abby martin (who is no longer with the network) and tom hartmann, who is pretty much the equivalent of rachel maddow. then there is "crosstalk" -- hosted by peter lavelle -- a george will conservative type, who does have a fair bit of sympathy for trump. i find the discussions and range of guests way more diverse than what you would see on any of the mainstream american networks. what exactly is wrong with that? it may not be perfect, but it's an improvment on brining in retired generals for opinions on wars.

regardless of how much bias one perceives in all of it, i am perfeectly fine to concede that facilitating the airing of ideas by vocal american critics is a clever way to wage the propaganda war. is this something that you think should be suppressed? people like ralph nader and noam chomsky used to appear on regular american TV way back in the 60s and 70s. chris hedges wrote for the new york times until the second iaq war. what is the logic here? we had all that criticism, plus those people, sidelined and marginalized to narrow academic/intellectual circles - how dare they bring them back!

i can understand (some) americans being pissed off to be outwitted by the russians like this (if we accept it all worked out according to plan), but this was never a gentleman's game. if iceland or denmark complained, maybe i would take it a tiny bit more seriously. i also fail to see how anyone can make a scientific appraisal of how the sum of propaganda from all sides, internal and external, contributed to the outcome of the election. even if we can, the moral lesson is surely not to point fingers, but to look at the political and popular culture we have created in which propaganda has allegedly returned as such a powerful force, why these two "superpowers" are still playing childish games and why we the people still allow it.



vuk.

p.s. i think that various tactics of voter suppression (including the apathy created by poverty) is a far bigger problem, if we are concerned with american electoral rigging.

 

[PsB]

matthew.

the document tells us that...

1- russian intelligence collected election-related information
2- RT, funded by the russian government, is useful for propagating ideas to the american and international public

i have no objection to those conclusions, but is that really the same as what the average person thinks of as "tamering" with elections? is it so different from what the two main parties do?

regarding #1, i am sure the russians and chinese and others gather way more than just election-related information: that they hack anything they can. i imagine the americans do the same. are you suggesting they don't? what would you propose to stop it? should it be stopped? (my idea is to phase out with state secrecy)

with #2, i have been watching RT regularly of late, mainly chris hedges' show "on contact". (...) i find the discussions and range of guests way more diverse than what you would see on any of the mainstream american networks. what exactly is wrong with that? it may not be perfect, but it's an improvment on brining in retired generals for opions on wars.

regardless of how much bias one perceieves in all of it, i am perfeectly fine to concede that facilitating the airing of ideas by vocal american ciritcs is a clever way to wage the propaganda war. is this something that you think should be supressed? people like ralph nader and noam chomsky used to appear on regular american TV way back in the 60s and 70s. what is the logic here? we had all that criticism, those people sidelined and marginalized to narrow academic/intellectual circles - how dare they bring it back!

i can understand (some) americans being pissed off to be outwitted by the russians like this (if we accept it all worked out according to plan), but this was never a gentleman's game. if iceland or denmark complained, maybe i would take it a tiny bit more seriously. i also fail to see how anyone can make a scientific appraisal of how the sum of propaganda from all sides, internal and external, contributed to the outcome of the election. even if we can, the moral lesson is surely not to point fingers, but to look at the political and popluar culture we have created in which propaganda has allegedly returned as such a powerful force and why these two "superpowers" are still playing childish games and why, we the people, still allow it.

vuk.

All fair points. The Russians have scored a few points in the propaganda wars recently, and RT has been a useful tool for them. Ditto with other countries. The Russians or the Qataris or the Chinese can put out their points of view, journalists can make a living, etc. The problem over time is when people get their news and views from one single source.

 

[vuk]

You continue to boggle my mind this evening. Just because you are subbing for Max you don't need to faithfully recreate the hard of thinking aspect as well.

matthew.

it is very difficult to discuss complicated stuff like this in a series of quick forum postings. with a hot topic, a less-than-ideal choice of word or turn of phrase can easily lead to misreading of intent or idea. i have no doubt that having the same discussion with anyone here face to face in my living room, over a pint of spirits, would end in unanimous agreement every time.


vuk.

 

[ErikL]

"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" -Trump tweet

The president accused Obama of ‘McCarthyism.’ But Trump’s mentor helped enforce it.

"McCarthyism is something of which Trump should have in-depth knowledge.

His lifelong attorney and mentor — Roy Cohn, one of the men who helped mold Trump into Trump — was, as one author called it, Joseph McCarthy's sidekick."